A lot of people feel that if they simply don’t use the power they have, they are innocent.
So the Quakers feel that if they commit no violence at all, they are innocent of the shedding of human blood.
This is in perfect accordance with Confusionist morality which says, “DO NOT do unto others what you would NOT HAVE THEM DO unto you.”
You can meet that requirement by doing nothing to anybody. That is Quaker morality.
There is a world of difference between this Quaker belief and Christianity. My Golden Rule says, “DO unto others what you would have them DO unto you.”
Let me tell you what that means. It means that if I have the POWER to protect the innocent by violence, then I must use violence.
The Quaker morality is Oriental. In traditional Japan, if a person was in danger and you helped him, you were responsible for that person for the rest of his life.
A Westerner who sees someone in danger feels he must ACT to save that person.
Asian morality says that you should always opt out, the way Quakers do.
You should read Bejamin Franklin’s autobiography and see what he says about the cowardly and hypocritical Quakers.
The Philadelphia Quakers were protected from the Indians by the people who went to the mountains, including my own German-speaking ancestors. Once they had a parade to show their dead in Philadelphia to try to get some help in their fight against Indian raiders.
The Quakers just said they were too Christian to help anyone fight to protect them. As long as someone else died to keep the Indians away from them, they were neutrals.
You know that nice Quaker on the Quaker Oats package? That is the picture most Americans have of the “Friends.”
The original Quaker Oats package showed a nasty old man chasing kids with a switch. Quakers were not so peaceful when it came to hitting children. Those were the “Friends,” the Quakers most Americans knew.
Then the Quakers protested and got the sweet, rosy-cheeked old man we were all raised with as the picture of a Quaker.
When Solzhenitzyn was in the Gulag a Quaker woman was visiting. One of the prisoners was told, under threat of death and worse, to say to her, “We are fine, but what about your treatment of American Negroes?”
I remember the Quakers quoting that endlessly. I remember hearing over and over and over that the whole world, even those prisoners in Siberia who were supposedly so maltreated, were appalled by the treatment of American Negroes.
No, I am NOT joking.
Solzhenitsyn, starving in the freezing Siberian Gulag, could not believe that any CHRISTIAN would take the forced words of a starving prisoner as truth about what he was concerned about.
He was right. No Christian would do that.
The Quakers are not Christians, they are Jehovists, orientals.
But the Quakers spread the word: Racism was evil, Stalin was good.
The Quakers are hideous, nasty little people. They are always anti-white. They are always anti-American.
#1 by Don on 01/06/2005 - 12:12 am
You sure do know how to turn a soul agin someone. I thought for a moment you were describing American politicians.
Benjamin Franklin’s era was different, but when it came to the wars of the Twentieth Century, I might be inclined to say Praise the Lord and Pass the Oatmeal. Which is to say, self-defense is one thing but racial suicide quite another. Hey, if you are going to be a hypocrite it may as well be for a damn good reason.
#2 by Bob Whitaker on 01/06/2005 - 11:06 am
Self-defense?
The Quakers would let their wives and children be raped and murdered in front of them and not lift a finger.
But they WILL call a cop. A cop with a gun.
How’s that for hypocrisy?
Ben was right about Quakers then and he’s right now.
What I REALLY hate about Quakers is that they are fanatically, monomanically anti-white. The American Friends Committee was a leader in demanding that FORCE be used to integrate everything. They just couldn’t do the forcing.
The insane wars America has fought did not make a pacifist out of me.
And Quakers STINK.
#3 by Don on 01/06/2005 - 2:55 pm
Let me clarify what my cryptic ramblings are suggesting.
On self-defense: I have no doubt that the Quakers are pathetic fools on that issue. Unfortunately, The Kansas City Massacre and the illegal invasion of America tell me that the disease has spread. But it will be a cold day in the hot place before I get infected.
On wars and soldiers: Suppose a young person were to come to me today and say “Bushstein and his neocons are stirring up more wars and starting the Draft, so I may become a Quaker for now.” Would that young person be a hypocrite? Absolutely. Would I condemn him for it? Absolutely not. Defense yes. Pointless suicide no.
On pacifism: Since I recently saw a documentary about MacArthur and the Korean War, I will use that as an example of how I think. For the sake of discussion, let’s suppose I am president at the time.
Advisor: “Mr. President, North Korea has just launched an invasion of South Korea.”
Me: “Give the North Koreans this message. We have a new weapon called a hydrogen bomb. Would you like to see how it works?
In other words, there would have been no Korean War. Either disengagement or what astrophysicists call the Big Bang.
#4 by HVDC on 01/08/2005 - 3:53 pm
To Don:
While I agree with your sentiments regarding the Korean war, I would like to know what protecting South Korea had to do with defending White America. I think the South Korean’s should fight their own battles.
That said, I would sell(or even give)limited range tactical nukes to every country where it would serve OUR interests.
#5 by Don on 01/08/2005 - 5:34 pm
RE:While I agree with your sentiments regarding the Korean war, I would like to know what protecting South Korea had to do with defending White America. I think the South Korean’s should fight their own battles.
At that time communism, the domino theory, etc. were much more in play than they are now. So I don’t think that letting the rest of the world battle it out while we stood aside and watched would have gone over too well. Thus the point would have been: Whatever follies we committed which brought us to where we were in 1950, there was a certain status quo, and the message would have been: “Don’t rock the boat – leave things be.” And this could have been accomplished without the mentality of sending soldiers all over the globe for the eternal policing actions. That was then, of course. This is now.
#6 by Don on 01/09/2005 - 11:53 am
Now if you can Time Project me back to 1936 or 1914 I will prevent most of those problems to begin with.
It is really amazing what happens when good people don’t pay attention to their government and just expect everything to turn out alright. You know – the eternal vigilance thing. Don’t we ever learn?
From George Washington to George Bush? How pathetic.
I hate to be crude, but George Washington left better stuff in the outhouse than we have occupying the White House.
Good people, can we start paying attention now?